Talk:Haji Faiz Mohammed

Is there any objection to a speedy delete?
Here is how the article reads as of today:

Mohammed Hagi Fiz is a frail elderly Afghani man who was detained in Camp X-Ray in the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Fiz, and two other Afghani man, Jan Mohammed and another elderly man Mohammed Sadiq, and elderly Pakistani, Mohammed Saghir were repatriated on October 29, 2002, after eight months detention. The four were among the first detainees to be repatriated.

Fiz said he was 105, but American authorities decided he was born in 1931.

The men described being chained, for hours, during their interrogations.

Some press reports described Fiz as barely able to conduct a conversation:

"..appeared to be in his 70s and was barely capable of carrying on a conversation--let alone of being a terrorist. 'Babbling at times like a child, the partially deaf, shriveled old man was unable to answer simple questions,' the New York Times reported. 'He struggled to complete sentences and strained to hear words that were shouted at him.' " Fiz said the Americans had initially captured him from his hospital bed.

Joaquin, please read WP:CSD. If it falls into any of the criteria there it is eligible for speedy deletion. I see nothing there that this article would fall into, so please stop asking meaningless questions on the talk page of articles. Please also do not post the article content here, we are all capable of reading it for ourselves. This is just more evidence of what seems to be your own personal vendetta against another Wikipedian. Please stop, it is not very helpful and somewhat less than mature behaviour. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin Murietta 15:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Will do, just wanted to make sure you had no objection. Joaquin Murietta 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Can this article be rewritten? Does it need to be?
The article seems to be POV, unencylopedic in its current form Does anyone have an objection to its being rewritten? Joaquin Murietta 15:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As above, stop asking meaningless questions. Either set out specifically where your concerns are, and engage in meaningful discussion, or edit the article as you see fit. All edits are open to review and alteration by others, as you well know. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

not listed.
The DoD was finally forced to release the names of all the Guantanamo detainess. Fiz's name is not on the list. There is a detainee on that list who the DoD calls "Faiz Mohammed", whose age is listed as UNKNOWN.

This may or may not be Fiz.

I think we should not accept the DoD's estimate of his age as reliable. Their estimates of the age of the minors they held was unreliable. If "Faiz Mohammed" is "Mohammed Hagi Fiz" then even the DoD wasn't willing to stand behind their estimated age. -- Geo Swan 02:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

move
What is the source for the name that is used now? After carefully evaluating the sources in the article and multiple secondary sources from search results. I plan to move the article to Haji Faiz Mohammed. Any objection? IQinn (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to this move, and I plan to request its reversal. Iqinn has been added the identical note on a bunch of articles.  He has asserted that he has carefully evaluated the sources.  He has asserted that he has evaluated multiple secondary sources.  In other instances I asked him to show his work.  I contend that being asked to show his work is not an insult.


 * In my opinion moving articles to new names shouldn't be done for frivolous reasons. In this particular instance he hasn't actually offered a reason for this move -- other than his assertion of a careful evaluation.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, for some of these articles, there are reasons to justify a renaming that are worth the maintenance burden. But that should follow a discussion where the possible candidate names are advanced, each with their pros and cons.


 * In some of the other instances Iqinn has stated that, in his opinion, those articles should use the same transliteration the New York Times has chosen. It seemed to me that he then asserted something the NYTimes did not claim -- that the NYTimes' choice of transliteration was based on the opinions of experts in the transliteration of names from languages that don't use a European script.  The NYTimes did not assert that.


 * It seems to me that Iqinn is implying that his "multiple secondary sources" have gone on record and stated that their choice of transliteration was based on the opinions of experts. But I don't believe that to be true.


 * Iqinn has recently claimed that I have claimed to be an expert on everything. It is inflammatory.  For the record I don't believe I have ever claimed I am an expert in the transliteration of non-English names.


 * Ideally we should have a central place to discuss the issues shared in the renaming of these articles. I suggest WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo captives' names.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is no need to post inflammatory ad hominem messages like this. There is no need for a central discussion. I you feel there is a better name than Haji Faiz Mohammed for this article here than please do argue about the best name for this article here on this talk page. IQinn (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First, please, before you use the term "ad hominem" again, please look up what it means. Nothing I wrote above is "ad hominem".  I dispute what I wrote is inflammatory.


 * Second, I know you know that "Haji", like "Reverend", is an honorific. I know you know that we only include honorifics in article titles in very rare instances, and only when we have a good reason.  This alone is ample reason not to use the new name you chose.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me assure you that i know the meaning of the term ad hominem and re-reading your previous message i must say the term fits well and i still think that these kind of messages can be inflammatory specially when similar messages are posted to other talk pages at the same time. I suggest we leave this point behind or leave it to other relevant forums and concentrate here on the content issue.


 * Yes i know and have known before the page move that Haji as part of a name can be an honorific. But i do not know reliable sources that confirm that the individual here has completed the Hajj and has added Haji to his name after that. Do you have reliable sources for that?


 * Let's assume we knew Haji is a honorific in the name of this individual. There is no policy against the use of Haji in article names. And you can find a lot of examples in Wikipedia with such article names. Could you please point me to the relevant part of a policy you think would not allow that?


 * Some policies even encourage not to omit the honorific when the underlying sources use it as part of the name when referring to an individual.


 * I still believe that the new name as it is now is the best choice and i would like to ask you first to answer my questions as a start for the discussion if there is even a better name for this article. I would also suggest to limit our replies to an acceptable size and a few arguments for each reply. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)